Search

A.P.Society registration Act =The A.P. Legislature enacted the new Act in the year 2001. Section 31 of the new Act repeals the Societies Registration Act 1960. However, sub-section (2) thereof makes it clear that any steps taken under the old Act shall be deemed to have been taken under the new enactment= The society was registered about half a century ago. Its affairs were being administered by the managing committee, comprising of various office bearers, including President Treasurer and Secretary. The record discloses that the 2nd respondent and the father of the 3rd respondent contributed a sum of Rs.25,000/-, which was quite a considerable amount at that time and that the same was used in acquiring properties for the establishment of a Degree College at Markapur. As a measure of recognition of their generosity, the members resolved to appoint them as Presidents in terms of three years each with hereditary rights. This arrangement was incorporated in bye-law 9(b). The petitioner or for that matter, anyone did not raise objection for the past five decades. .=What Section 14 mandates is an election to the committee comprising of not less than three members. At any rate, the arrangement that was in existence under the old enactment is saved under sub- section (2) of Section 32. The trial Court has taken note of these developments and dismissed the S.R.O.P.= This Court is not inclined to take any different view.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1043 OF 2011 05-07-2011 Chirlamacherla Chinna Venkata Subbaiah Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Arts Counsel for the petitioner:Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for respondents:--:ORDER: The 1st respondent-society was registered way back in the year 1966. Itappears that respondent No.2 and his brother, by name Balaratnam, gave aconsiderable amount of Rs.25,000/- to the society. As a measure of gratitude,the members have resolved to appoint the 2nd respondent and his brother asPresidents in alternative terms of three years with hereditary rights. Theelection of the other office bearers was being held from time to time. Theaffairs of the society were being administered with that arrangement. The petitioner filed S.R.O.P.No.2 of 2006 in the Court of I AdditionalDistrict Judge, Ongole against the respondents under Section 23 of the A.P.Societies Registration Act, 2011 (for short 'the new Act') with a prayer todeclare bye-law 9(b) of the society as illegal, void and contrary to Section 14of the new Act, for mandatory injunction directing respondents 2 to 4 to conductelections to all the posts in the executive committee and to direct the societyto amend the bye-laws suitably. He pleaded that whatever may have been thejustification or legality of bye-law 9(b) before the new Act came to be enacted,once Section 14 of the new Act mandates that election shall be held to thecommittee periodically, it becomes impermissible for respondents 2 and 3 to actas Presidents on nomination basis. The application was opposed by the respondents. It was urged that thearrangement was in existence almost for half a century and that the same cannotbe altered at this length of time. They further pleaded that Section 14 of thenew Act does not prohibit the nomination of any office bearers and on the otherhand, Section 5(v) permits of such an arrangement. It was also pleaded that thenew Act does not have effect on the bye-laws, that were framed by the societyregistered under the A.P. Public Societies Registration Act. The trial Courtdismissed the O.P, through judgment, dated 28.09.2010. Hence, this revisionunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat there is a clear conflict between bye-law 9(b) of the society on the onehand and Section 14 of the new Act on the other. He contends that bye-law 7(a)of the society also mandates that election shall be held and bye-law 9(b)virtually makes it nugatory to the extent it concerns the post of officePresident. The society was registered about half a century ago. Its affairs werebeing administered by the managing committee, comprising of various officebearers, including President Treasurer and Secretary. The record discloses thatthe 2nd respondent and the father of the 3rd respondent contributed a sum ofRs.25,000/-, which was quite a considerable amount at that time and that thesame was used in acquiring properties for the establishment of a Degree Collegeat Markapur. As a measure of recognition of their generosity, the membersresolved to appoint them as Presidents in terms of three years each withhereditary rights. This arrangement was incorporated in bye-law 9(b). Thepetitioner or for that matter, anyone did not raise objection for the past fivedecades. The A.P. Legislature enacted the new Act in the year 2001. Section 31 ofthe new Act repeals the Societies Registration Act 1960. However, sub-section(2) thereof makes it clear that any steps taken under the old Act shall bedeemed to have been taken under the new enactment. It means that if anyinconsistency is noticed between the state of affairs that came into existenceunder the old enactment and the scheme of things under the new Act, the steps sofound shall be deemed to have been taken under the new Act and nowhere in the Act, much less under Section 32, it is suggested that any steps taken under theold enactment shall be deemed to be invalid or inoperative. Further, Section 14of the New Act does not mandate that every office bearer of the managingcommittee must be elected. The provision reads as under:14. Committee of the society:- (1) Every society shall elect a Committee,consisting of not less than three members of the society, by a resolution passedby a majority of the members present and entitled to vote at an annual generalbody meeting of the society held under Sec.20.(2) The term of the Committee or of its members soc elected shall be a periodnot exceeding six years as may be specified in the bye-laws:Provided that a member who has completed a term of an elected member is eligiblefor re-election as a member of Committee, if the bye-laws so permit.(3) Every society shall maintain a register showing the names, addresses andoccupations of the persons, who are members of the Committee and shall file withthe Registrar:-(i) a copy of the register within a period of fourteen days from the date ofelection of the members of the first committee; and(ii) a notice of every change in the members of the Committee within a period offourteen days from the date of such change.A distinction is maintained between the committee and office bearers as isevident from Section 5 of the new Act. The relevant provision reads as under: 5. Contents of bye-laws of societies:- The bye-laws of a society shallcontain provisions in respect of following matters:(i) identity of the society which includes name and address particulars of thesociety;(ii) activities of the society;(iii) membership of the society i.e., eligibility, admission, withdrawal andtermination etc.,(iv) General body which contains the manner of meetings to be held or convened,quorum, functions and responsibilities etc.,(v) Office bearers and their appointment/election/removal/recall and theirresponsibilities etc.,(vi) Finances which includes types of funds to be raised, appointment ofauditors, liability of members for discharge of debts etc., and(vii) Other matters which cover the internal matters of settlement of internaldisputes, dissolution of the society etc. It is therefore evident that in a given case, it is impermissible for anoffice bearer to be appointed/elected. What Section 14 mandates is an electionto the committee comprising of not less than three members. At any rate, thearrangement that was in existence under the old enactment is saved under sub-section (2) of Section 32. The trial Court has taken note of these developmentsand dismissed the S.R.O.P. This Court is not inclined to take any differentview. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be noorder as to costs.